stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and UserClass::from_char()
Date Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:31:45 GMT
Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Lemings [mailto:Eric.Lemings@roguewave.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 2:36 PM
>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
>> Subject: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and UserClass::from_char()
>>
>>  
> ...
>> Now I'm sorta new to this UserClass and container testing but 
>> but WTF is
>> going on here?  char* and UserClass* are convertible certainly but
>> clearly not compatible.
> 
> Ehh, darn.  I got str and str_ mixed up.

I was just about to say that. It took me a while to figure
it out. Those names could have been chosen better...

> 
> Anwyays, what does this have to do with STDCXX-709?  I believe the
> _rw_find_block() function is not able to find the specified memory
> block because the array is initially allocated by the
> __rw_from_char() function (file tests/src/value.cpp, line 485)
> and therefore is not mananging this memory in its headers.
> 
> So either a new handler needs to be added or the delete replacement
> needs to be removed.

So you think there's a mismatch between the allocation function
invoked in value.cpp and the deallocation function called in the
header? Why would that be? IIUC, tests that replace operator new
and operator delete (such as 23.list.assign) replace it for the
whole process. If there's a mismatch, it can only be because
the operators aren't replaced consistently. Making sure this
replacement happens across the whole process, including any
libraries, is the responsibility of the C++ runtime (i.e.,
the compiler). If your analysis is correct, the C++ runtime
on IPF would have to be buggy.

Or did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?

Martin


Mime
View raw message